Forum: Stricter pet grooming standards needed under revised welfare code

Minister of State for National Development Alvin Tan recently shared in Parliament that the Code of Animal Welfare will be reviewed in 2026 to enhance minimum standards, with a focus on groomers. This is a positive step forward, but closer attention should be paid to the need for stricter pet grooming standards.

Currently, the welfare code sets baseline expectations for pet groomers through “minimum standards” and “best practices”. However, there is no formal licensing scheme, and standards can vary across providers.

This is of concern, given the trust pet owners place in groomers, who have a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of animals in their care. Recent cases suggest that the current standards and enforcement in Singapore may not be sufficient.

In the past three years, the authorities have probed 54 cases of alleged groomer-related pet harm, some resulting in death (Animal welfare laws review will consider requirements for CCTV at pet groomers: Alvin Tan, Jan 14).

In 2024, a corgi died after falling due to improper restraint. The groomer was fined $10,000 and temporarily disqualified from running animal-related businesses for nine months.

In 2025, a poodle that was left unattended during grooming died, highlighting the risks of such practices.

And in March 2026, a rabbit died after allegedly being pinned on its back for an extended period during grooming.

These incidents highlight a key concern: Accountability often becomes an issue only after harm has occurred, rather than through measures that actively prevent negligence.

While penalties exist under the Animals and Birds Act, they are inadequate when weighed against the loss of a pet that is often regarded as family. Despite progress in reducing overall animal cruelty and welfare cases, grooming-related incidents suggest gaps in oversight and enforcement.

Measures to strengthen accountability should be considered. Mandating CCTV recordings in grooming facilities, particularly where pets are handled, would improve transparency and deter negligent practices.

I find it encouraging that this is already being considered as part of the ongoing review, as Mr Tan mentioned. In addition, stricter licensing and certification requirements would ensure that groomers are properly trained in safe handling techniques.

As Singapore continues to strengthen its animal welfare framework, it is critical that regulation evolves alongside industry practices. Strengthening grooming standards is not simply about raising expectations, but also about ensuring that systems are in place to prevent avoidable harm.

Jade Ng